Mailing-List: contact ooo-dev-help@incubator.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org
Received-SPF: pass (nike.apache.org: domain of rabastus@gmail.com designates
 209.85.210.175 as permitted sender)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Sender: rabastus@gmail.com
In-Reply-To: <4F66DB94-E1C4-41F3-B2D8-163747C6767C@webmink.com>
References: <BANLkTi=HV9uyQzvADD0KSLFcoPesdjfu1w@mail.gmail.com>
	<1309381916.82460.YahooMailClassic@web113503.mail.gq1.yahoo.com>
	<BANLkTikDx3yVjKZJcr57o95+H=bevXn2jA@mail.gmail.com>
	<00c701cc36ec$5dab9750$1902c5f0$@acm.org>
	<BANLkTik1v+arZ8We2Z=WKaQCjQGvjWn9yw@mail.gmail.com>
	<010001cc3741$51c88740$f55995c0$@acm.org>
	<BANLkTikJJO7YPoa0t7kNMmMX-J8GKrx+ZQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<00d001cc380f$98fec4c0$cafc4e40$@acm.org>
	<1309664343.19050.3.camel@rigel>
	<CAKQbXgBkwyPMN8nY9FJHBd0hHMBYywjgaCygJKLJ+3hLb9tJ4g@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAPDmd-B71bOiEDBN0cHbFbEfsmqzwfPaYofuGBcoiu3CVDhcFQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAKQbXgCe_wLUOFu7oZFSk7ZrrdqAa--SJqSvbiaGY=9sXD8n7w@mail.gmail.com>
	<4F66DB94-E1C4-41F3-B2D8-163747C6767C@webmink.com>
Date: Sun, 3 Jul 2011 21:03:06 -0400
Message-ID: 
 <CAP-ksohqRVsboihksP20RAorwBF0G30bRUXiWvZW4Pth5UdiDw@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: OOO and LibreOffice.
From: Rob Weir <apache@robweir.com>
To: ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On Sun, Jul 3, 2011 at 8:40 PM, Simon Phipps <simon@webmink.com> wrote:
>
> On 3 Jul 2011, at 19:43, Ross Gardler wrote:
>
>> But before we can
>> get to that point we need to address the technical differences between
>> the two code bases. LO is already 8 months or so adrift of OOo (or at
>> least that is what I am led to believe).
>
> It's worth observing that the code that new developers will be able to wo=
rk on at Apache is also likely to have significant differences from the las=
t release from the Sun/Oracle infrastructure, as well as a completely diffe=
rent workflow. I suspect we'll all have no choice but to accept there's a l=
ot of refactoring and relearning to do whatever happens.
>
>> What happened to the plan for OOo and TDF people to get together?
>
> We attempted it here at FISL and had a good turnout to the sessions Jomar=
 Silva organised (and which I attended too). The result is a commitment (in=
 the form of a letter of intent signed by on behalf of the responsible mini=
ster) by the Brazilian government to invest in both AOOo and LibreOffice. I=
 hope we'll have a news posting about it early in the week.
>
> It's tough, because there's a lot of emotion and history on both "sides",=
 but I agree with Jomar that it's possible to devise ways to work together.=
 One challenge we'll have with the new developers that Brazil will commit w=
ill be getting engaged with the codebase. We think a great way for them to =
do that now (rather than at an unknown point in the future) is to use the "=
Easy Hacks" page that LibreOffice has put together to go start work on the =
code now.
>
> I suggest we encourage others to do the same. =C2=A0Doing so is education=
al and co-operative, and TDF are perfectly happy to accept contributions un=
der the Apache license.
>

Simon,

Any chance of TDF requiring Apache 2.0 for new code contributions, in
addition to their current requirement for LGPL/MPL?  My reading of
their rules suggests that a simple majority of their Steering
Committee authorize such a change.  Doing so would open up many more
possibilities for future collaboration and cooperation.  Not doing so
would severely constrain possibilities for cooperation.

-Rob

> S.
>
>
> [1] http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Development/Easy_Hacks